• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Do you have audio editing experience and want to help out with the Famiboards Discussion Club Podcast? If so, we're looking for help and would love to have you on the team! Just let us know in the Podcast Thread if you are interested!

Discussion "A struggling Nintendo is a creative Nintendo"- Do you agree with this statement?

ngpdrew said:
These things aren’t even in the same ballpark. TOTK stands on the shoulder of a giant and leaps into outer space. Tropical Freeze is like Returns but slightly better.
Click to expand...
TotK is like BotW but slightly better too. Except it literally took the same world and just threw everything and the kitchen sink on top of it. Tropical Freeze has an entirely new set of levels. Both sequels took 10/10 games and iterated on them. How exactly are you quantifying the difference? "Prestige"?
 
Yzz said:
???

Three Houses has a more interesting structure than Awakening and SoV, with its four routes and calendar system. It also expanded the class and weapon system by allowing every unit to change to any class and use any weapon type. The game got rid of the overused unit archetypes found in every FE game (the christmas knights, the edgy myrmidon, the Jagen etc.) and instead lets the player choose a group of units at the start of the game.

Magic and bows also got revamped and don't work like regular weapons anymore (although Gaiden / SoV did this first).

The story, despite its flaws, was more entertaining with the whole "childhood friends killing each other", instead of the Gary Sue prince vs the evil dark dragon.

Fates implemented interesting changes like getting rid of weapon durability and the three routes, but few of these were well received. The game having Awakening's skeleton doesn't do it any favors either.
Click to expand...
The franchise was dying a slow death until Awakening completely revitalized it. It was a huge step up in presentation and UI. I guess you can say it wasn't necessarily any more "creative" than entries before it but it definitely wasn't safe.
 
SpaceGodzilla said:
so we're in the "switch bad" "Wii u good" era of shit hot takes
Click to expand...
It always been this case with Nintendo hardcore fanbase since GameCube days lol.

GC era: I don't like all these kiddy looking games. i miss N64 era where Nin used to make Grownups games.

Wii era: I don't like all these non-gamers/casuals games. I miss GC days when Nin used to make hardcore games

Wii U era: We have no games and the Wii U gimmick is boring. I miss the Wii days when Nin used to make more games and have interesting motion based games.

And now here we are 🤷
 
I tried skimming over the video but I couldn’t really agree with any of the Youtuber’s sentiments. Like him preferring those sluggish Directs over the new snappy ones.

I did find it insulting though when they said something along the lines of “when Iwata died, Nintendo changed for the worse” as if the Switch wasn’t one of Iwata’s babies. As if Iwata, god bless his soul, wouldn’t like seeing the company flourish.

And for the conclusion, no, Nintendo does not need to struggle to be creative. They’ll publish Snipperclips, Cadence of Hyrule, Ring Fit Adventure, goddamn LABO. How anyone could declare all that as a lack of creativity confuses me.
 
Lord Azrael said:
TotK is like BotW but slightly better too. Except it literally took the same world and just threw everything and the kitchen sink on top of it. Tropical Freeze has an entirely new set of levels. Both sequels took 10/10 games and iterated on them. How exactly are you quantifying the difference? "Prestige"?
Click to expand...
It is a hell of a kitchen sink.
 
Lugia667 said:
His thumbnails seem to contain his general points without watching the whole thing. He also seems to prefer the older slower paced directs as well.

I think his main issue is less with Nintendo’s games and more with the companies overall uhh “personality”
Click to expand...
what's with all these weird dudes fixated on a company's personality smh
 
meatbag said:
They’ll publish Snipperclips, Cadence of Hyrule, Ring Fit Adventure, goddamn LABO. How anyone could declare all that as a lack of creativity confuses me.
Click to expand...
Oh, but see, Cadence of Hyrule was made by some indie and Snipperclips was made by the The Legend of Zelda: The Lampshade of no real Significance people. Those weren't actually Nintendo. They don't really count.
 
0
Anytime people claim Nintendo at their lowest points is “true Nintendo” it’s always:
A) Purposefully being a contrarian
B) Nostalgia with zero memory of the content droughts
C) Bad taste

Nintendo has always made great games every generation, but I can’t take these “they lost their soul” opinions seriously.
 
real OGs know Nintendo's REAL lowest point was in the 60s before Ultra Hand saved them
 
0
browneyes84 said:
I think Nintendo are playing it a little safe this gen but who can blame them after the Wii U. That said Labo, Game Builder Garage and Ring Fit are hardly safe.



That's just rubbish, for Wii U we had Splatoon, Mario Maker, Nintendo Land, Captain Toad... not just creative games but games that are either brand new genres or concepts for Nintendo. Mario 3D World was bursting with creativity, the art style of Yoshi's Woolly World, things like Starfox Guard, anti-gravity Mario Kart, commissioning Bayonetta 3, the entire concept of Miiverse etc etc
Click to expand...
This list is very sad

Splatoon? Sure I guess

Mario Maker should have been a launch game, level editors are a thing since way back so this was a no brainer really

Nintendo Land? Yeah remember when people were hugely disappointed that the “one more thing” that E3 was that the Wii U would indeed have a minigame collection as a packed in game. People were sick of minigame collections. Not sure that referencing their series is that creative either

Mario 3D World, along with other Mario games of that era, are basically different flavors of NSMB, sharing the gameplay loop of SMB3. Anyone can point out their “favorite creative levels” from whatever 3D Mario and they will always be more unique than whatever’s in 3D Land/World. Captain Toad isn’t helping your case either, they made a full game out of the puzzle levels from 3D World… gotta fill in those droughts somehow

Yoshi’s Story did it first, Woolly World’s art style was already iterating on Epic Yarn’s, game itself is just Yoshi’s Island but slower

Star Fox Guard is a packed in tower defense game that used the Gamepad, not much else to say about it. The main game in the bundle is, structure-wise, a rehash of past Star Fox games

Anti-gravity Mario Kart is really reaching it, I won’t even comment on this

And now, funding Bayonetta 2… congrats Nintendo, you secured an exclusive stylish action game, a genre your consoles has been starving on since the PS2. Same thing for Hyrule Warriors, that wasn’t bold at all, it was them funding a Warriors game, the COD of Japan. But wait, Nintendo consoles barely had these in the past so this was “fresh”. Finally getting games in genres that other consoles took for granted isn’t exactly creative, especially when they basically funded them

No matter how many Wii U/3DS games are your favorites, gassing up that era will never be convincing. It’s like… say you got a hockey team. You got a good goalie, you got some good players that would be very solid 3rd liners on a good team. However, you have no superstars on the team, no big goal scorer, no elite playmaker, you’re not even close of making the playoffs. That’s how the Wii U library is, it’s just not enough
 
Last edited:
Wii U era Nintendo always felt pretty safe to me, though that’s probably a feeling mainly bolstered by 3D world (and in general, the NSMB-ification of the Mario brand around that time).

I’d say BotW started a Nintendo creativity renaissance actually.

Honestly though, they’re always creative in terms of game design
 
A pile of the bigger games on the WiiU would have started development during the Wii years, it’s not that increased creativity is an instant reaction to a product stumbling out of the gate as game development doesn’t only start at that point.

As for 3DS, I don’t think the first party games on it were any more creative than they were on DS. It just feels like something that’s trying to bundle favourite games into ‘eras of creativity’ rather than something that has any real truth in it.

Nintendo has always been creative, they throw a lot of stuff at the wall regardless of the current level of success of their platforms or those particular games. The ones that stick are the ones people point to as creativity (but often only as long as it matches their preferences for genre etc), the ones that don’t are quickly forgotten. For example, another reaction to Nintendo ‘struggling’ a bit and ‘creativity’ in the 3DS years is Metroid Federation Force and Triforce Heroes, but you rarely hear anything good about them trying something new with the IP as they appeal less to forum posters wanting single player games. Meanwhile, Ring Fit Adventure is probably the strongest, most creative new IP on the Switch and that rarely gets discussed either. Anyone could cherrypick enough examples from Nintendo’s output to make any case here really (as I’ve obviously just done above!).
 
Last edited:
I do think that the Wii U brought some of the best of them out software wise. But I have seen a lot of original games coming up during the Nintendo Switch time. I would even argue that overall the Nintendo Switch has the best library of all the Nintendo consoles and handhelds.
 
I don't get the point made at the end of the video on how Metroid Dread is an example of what kind of games Nintendo should be making.
I love Dread but it's a pretty standard 2D Metroid game, all things considered, it's basically an evolution of Samus Returns.
What makes it different than other Switch games that are really good but aren't revolutionary for their franchise?

The author also brings up the point that franchises like Fire Emblem, Kirby, and Pokémon are experiencing franchise fatigue because they're made by external studios that don't have access to other Nintendo franchises and so they only make games for the series that they are most known for.
This ignores how FE and Kirby both had entries on the Switch that are among their best-received critically and commercially and how even Pokémon managed to get games like Legends Arceus or New Pokémon Snap which were nice surprises and were also well-received.
I get that this main point was that EPD has taken a backseat this gen outside the first year of the Switch, but I don't see how external studios taking the spotlight is a bad thing. It's unrealistic to think that Nintendo's internal studios can sustain an entire console library on their own.

I just can't agree with this Wii U-era revisionism. Sure some things were better back then (like Club Nintendo or Nintendo Selects) compared to what we have now, but, especially when it comes to the games' quality, I just can't see how Switch's best games aren't at the very least on par with what its predecessor offered.
Are we getting more mediocre games? Maybe, but that's just a side effect of getting more games in general. It's not like all Wii U games were home runs for that matter.
 
Last edited:
Yoshifan31 said:
This list is very sad

Splatoon? Sure I guess

Mario Maker should have been a launch game, level editors are a thing since way back so this was a no brainer really

Nintendo Land? Yeah remember when people were hugely disappointed that the “one more thing” that E3 was that the Wii U would indeed have a minigame collection as a packed in game. People were sick of minigame collections. Not sure that referencing their series is that creative either

Mario 3D World, along with other Mario games of that era, are basically different flavors of NSMB, sharing the gameplay loop of SMB3. Anyone can point out their “favorite creative levels” from whatever 3D Mario and they will always be more unique than whatever’s in 3D Land/World. Captain Toad isn’t helping your case either, they made a full game out of the puzzle levels from 3D World… gotta fill in those droughts somehow

Yoshi’s Story did it first, Woolly World’s art style was already iterating on Epic Yarn’s, game itself is just Yoshi’s Island but slower

Star Fox Guard is a packed in tower defense game that used the Gamepad, not much else to say about it. The main game in the bundle is, structure-wise, a rehash of past Star Fox games

Anti-gravity Mario Kart is really reaching it, I won’t even comment on this

And now, funding Bayonetta 2… congrats Nintendo, you secured an exclusive stylish action game, a genre your consoles has been starving on since the PS2. Same thing for Hyrule Warriors, that wasn’t bold at all, it was them funding a Warriors game, the COD of Japan. But wait, Nintendo consoles barely had these in the past so this was “fresh”. Finally getting games in genres that other consoles took for granted isn’t exactly creative, especially when they basically funded them

No matter how many Wii U/3DS games are your favorites, gassing up that era will never be convincing. It’s like… say you got a hockey team. You got a good goalie, you got some good players that would be very solid 3rd liners on a good team. However, you have no superstars on the team, no big goal scorer, no elite playmaker, you’re not even close of making the playoffs. That’s how the Wii U library is, it’s just not enough
Click to expand...
You might want to check the first post again. This thread is about Nintendo creativity, not the success of that generation. Why bring up software droughts and E3 reveals? "Mario Maker should have been a launch game" what does that matter in the context of this discussion? The fact that you barely acknowledge Splatoon says it all. What about NES Remix or Miiverse? The Switch has given us...NES games and a dark or light OS theme. Let's hear your comparable list of Nintendo at their creative best in the Switch generation then, all seven years of it. Odyssey, Labo, absolutely, what else?

I love the Switch and the Wii U was a failure, but I don't think it's controversial to say that Nintendo are playing it a bit safe in terms of software this generation, compared to last.
 
Lugia667 said:
Somehow this...."interesting" video popped into my feed about why this guy thinks the Wii U era is better



his last point is that Nintendo does better when it struggles but....is this really true? The idea that Nintendo needs to be in trouble to make good games seems pretty weird to me
Click to expand...

All these videos tend to end up being basically "I miss the games I played when I was young".
 
During the Wii U era, at the peak of the "struggle", they struggled to put out hardly any games that would take advantage of the system they created. In the end, only a handful of games did and even fewer did it well. The Switch is so far beyond all that in terms of creativity and consistency.
 
Youtube revisionist videos are 99% clickbaits. No one is going to watch your video if you say that Switch is Nintendo's best console. But if you claim that Wii U era Nintendo was the best you're guaranteed to get views and likes.
 
A struggling YouTuber is a creative-with-the-truth YouTuber


I know nothing about this channel, didn't watch the video
 
The only thing I'm missing about "struggling" Nintendo is the free stuff. Ambassador Program, Wii U points program... remember when they gave out a free game alongside Mario Kart 8?
They really don't do that kinda stuff when the console and games sell like hotcakes on their own lol. I'd still rather see a successful Nintendo tho.
 
LiamRobertson said:
The Switch is so far beyond all that in terms of creativity and consistency.
Click to expand...

Consistency absolutely.

Creativity, like what?
Would you call Luigi's Mansion 3 creative? Or Kirby Star Allies? Or Switch Sports? Mario Kart 8 DX? Splatoon 3? Mario Maker 2? Smash Ultimate? Mario Golf Super Rush? Most are great games, but iterative sequels and hardly a shining example of Nintendo's creativity.

Regardless of whether Nintendo struggled to put out games that made use of the Wii U gamepad, games like Splatoon, Mario Maker, NES Remix, Nintendo Land, Captain Toad and stuff like Miiverse and Starfox Guard where hardly creatively bankrupt additions to those 4 years of the Wii U. Four years compared to the Switch's seven I might add.
 
LiamRobertson said:
During the Wii U era, at the peak of the "struggle", they struggled to put out hardly any games that would take advantage of the system they created. In the end, only a handful of games did and even fewer did it well. The Switch is so far beyond all that in terms of creativity and consistency.
Click to expand...
Yep.

browneyes84 said:
Consistency absolutely.

Creativity, like what?
Would you call Luigi's Mansion 3 creative? Or Kirby Star Allies? Or Switch Sports? Mario Kart 8 DX? Splatoon 3? Mario Maker 2? Smash Ultimate? Mario Golf Super Rush? Most are great games, but hardly a shining example of Nintendo's creativity.

Regardless of whether Nintendo struggled to put out games that made use of the Wii U gamepad, games like Splatoon, Mario Maker, NES Remix, Nintendo Land, Captain Toad and stuff like Miiverse and Starfox Guard where hardly creatively bankrupt additions to those 4 years of the Wii U.
Click to expand...

Sequels aren't creative by the fact of them being sequels then? Is TOTK not creative? Is the Splatoon 2 DLC not creative?

Switch is a better console, it has better games (yes, first party AND third party), it gets new releases constantly and there are 0 droughts. The Wii U was a very flawed system with a few gems that people cling on to because everybody played the same 10 games and they need to justify their purchase 10 years after it released. It's the DreamCast all over again.
 
You can be creative in sequels.

Why do you think Nintendo are pulling in millions of copies sold with games starring Mario, Link, Kirby, Pokémon and many others for over thirty years?
 
Irene said:
5 years ago, a successful Nintendo gave us Labo
Click to expand...
It’s not just Labo, either. Super Mario Odyssey is so bursting with creativity you could take almost every capture and spin them off into their own game. ARMS is a novel take on 3D fighters. Snipperclips is cooperative puzzler with a unique cutting mechanic. Astral Chain shakes up the character action formula by making you control two characters at once. Ring Fit Adventure and LABO speak for themselves!

I feel like there’s no need to downplay the creativity of either Wii U and Switch eras. And I shall maintain that there’s no need for Nintendo to struggle to be creative.
 
Did some reminiscing... I think we, the players should struggle a little more. I remember that when I was younger I was playing like 3 new games a year tops because I didn't even have Internet to know about what games were the best and whatnot but these 3 games a year... They were all GOAT! (according to my standards of course) but now we have an absolute overkill of choice so naturally people might start complaining about everything feeling the same and nothing being creative.

Meanwhile Nintendo has been going strong for ages and I believe that is admirable in these times. To still have an output that surprises long time fans with an entire life behind them already.

I think they are fine whether they are struggling or not.
 
Last edited:
I guess some creativity does come from struggle, since it allows franchises to be shaken up. On the other hand, struggle might lead to a company thinking they need another 20m+ game leading to a safe NSMB title being produced. It's a double-edged sword, really, and should be examined by decision, not as a whole. For example, in the context of Nintendo, we don't know when the "struggle" even started as opposed to when developement on some titles began. Were those creative titles greenlit after the Wii's success with Nintendo thinking that everything's gonna be fine, or were they made in responce as an effort to do something new and capture new players?

Overall, I don't like thinking about Nintendo as one monolith. Lumping their games in the context of a brand and being an armchair economist seems boring to me. That said, I'm fairly happy with the direction they're going. Mario and Zelda haven't been as strange as they are now in years, Kirby got its first 3D installment, we're getting Metroid back, so it's all good.
 
I miss the old Nintendo, straight from the 'Go Nintendo
Chop up the soul Nintendo, set on his goals Nintendo
I hate the new Nintendo, the successful Nintendo
The TOTK Nintendo, Switch in the news Nintendo
I miss the sweet Nintendo, Starfox Zero Nintendo
I gotta say at that time I'd like to meet Nintendo
See I invented Nintendo, it wasn't any Nintendos
And now I look and look around and there's so many Nintendo
I used to love Nintendo, I used to love Nintendo
I even had the red Mario hat, I thought I was Nintendo
What if Nintendo made a game about Nintendo
Called "I Miss The Old Nintendo, " man that would be so Nintendo
That's all it was Nintendo, we still love Nintendo
And I love you like Nintendo loves Nintendo
 
Ozeiyo said:
Sequels aren't creative by the fact of them being sequels then? Is TOTK not creative? Is the Splatoon 2 DLC not creative?

Switch is a better console, it has better games (yes, first party AND third party), it gets new releases constantly and there are 0 droughts. The Wii U was a very flawed system with a few gems that people cling on to because everybody played the same 10 games and they need to justify their purchase 10 years after it released. It's the DreamCast all over again.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying sequels can't be creative but I give a ton more creativity points to Nintendo for creating Splatoon on Wii U, than releasing Splatoon 3 on Switch, as one example.

Again I'm not saying that the Switch isn't a better console with more games, of course it is. The Wii U was a failure. But some of Nintendo's most creative and original titles came from that system. The Switch has tons of great games but in terms of originality and innovation, most of the big tentpole releases play it relatively safe compared to the previous gen, where Nintendo had to make something new and original to stand out.
 
pretty much an ass pull that argument.

Who how decides what was more creative?

People just look at what was here and how successfull nintendo was.
Less so what the technological framework was.

Iwata came to nintendo in 2000, a year latere the GC was released.
Its not that iwata did not have a ton of input on that, but its also not like he had full control from the beginning.

Till 2000 it was yamauchi in the lead, and he was more of an oldschool japanese business man.
The way they treated third parties and thought gaming is their lead to the N64, and that it was so easy to pirate Sony Software made them automatically win in a lot of markets. (eastern europe for example).
GC was a good try, but it not being able to play DVDs OR CDs was a weakpoint for when it released.
They tried to get 3D going, and that WOULD have been huge, but they only got where wii was because the tech was available. Same with the DS.
PDAs where comon in business areas, so the tech had a sizable market, and they just took it and moved it into the tech space, because it became feasible.
The Wii U was limited by price, and was in a time where progress in mobile tech was so fast, that by the time it came out it was already kinda old (the size, the screen quality) compared to smartphones and tablets. The switch came right when mobile tech and the consoles where closer then ever, and where progress in the mobile space slowed down a bit (perceivable progress).

In regards to games...don't know, they don't seem more or less risky then ever to me.
 
0
Yeah Nintendo were so creative during the Wii U era: hordes of 2D platformers and shite party games.

Wii and DS era was the most creative.
 
browneyes84 said:
I'm not saying sequels can't be creative but I give a ton more creativity points to Nintendo for creating Splatoon on Wii U, than releasing Splatoon 3 on Switch, as one example.

Again I'm not saying that the Switch isn't a better console with more games, of course it is. The Wii U was a failure. But some of Nintendo's most creative and original titles came from that system. The Switch has tons of great games but in terms of originality and innovation, most of the big tentpole releases play it relatively safe compared to the previous gen, where Nintendo had to make something new and original to stand out.
Click to expand...

But did Nintendo really have to make new and innovative things though? Nintendo's tentpole series launched with an (excellent but) extremely safe 2D Mario and a 3D Mario that was a sequel to a 3DS game, for instance. Splatoon was a huge hit and an innovative game, but Nintendo did the exact same thing with Switch launching ARMS. The difference between these 2 games is that Splatoon was a hit and ARMS wasn't.

The stylus kirby game was innovative, yes, but it is also building on a DS game. The switch has the first 3D Kirby game, for instance.

I'd wager that, comparatively, the Wii U era looks more innovative because there were less games overall and the gamepad did allow these games to shine, but I don't think it had more.
 
JorgenRaft said:
I think they played it a bit safe for the most part this generation outside of obvious standouts (like BotW, Ring Fit, Labo)
Click to expand...

And Arms, and Super Mario Odyssey, and funding three Xenoblade Chronicles projects, and letting Ubisoft run with the Mario IP, and letting Brace Yourself (Crypt of the Necrodancer) run with the Zelda IP, and Game Builder Garage, and...
 
Nintendo is akin to the Saiyan race. Once they are pushed against the wall during a fight, they will unleash their true potential and get stronger.
 
0
Ozeiyo said:
But did Nintendo really have to make new and innovative things though? Nintendo's tentpole series launched with an (excellent but) extremely safe 2D Mario and a 3D Mario that was a sequel to a 3DS game, for instance. Splatoon was a huge hit and an innovative game, but Nintendo did the exact same thing with Switch launching ARMS. The difference between these 2 games is that Splatoon was a hit and ARMS wasn't.

The stylus kirby game was innovative, yes, but it is also building on a DS game. The switch has the first 3D Kirby game, for instance.

I'd wager that, comparatively, the Wii U era looks more innovative because there were less games overall and the gamepad did allow these games to shine, but I don't think it had more.
Click to expand...

Good point about ARMS, that's definitely innovative and creative; same with Labo and Ring Fit. It's just that as much as I adore my Switch I can understand the argument that we've not seen enough of that sort of thing given the console has been on the market for over seven years. Splatoon 3, Luigi's Mansion 3, Mario Maker 2, Yoshi's Crafted World, Mario Strikers, Switch Sports, Mario Golf Super Rush, Metroid Dread ... most are brilliant games, but playing it fairly safe compared to the previous gen. Pikmin 4 looks to be in the same boat as well, we'll see on that one. Anyway, I'm repeating myself now so will leave it there.
 
Last edited:
0
To be nostalgic for the Wii U era is strange because…what are you actually nostalgic for?? You’re still playing the same Mario Kart. You can still play on Switch its Mario game, its Pikmin game, its 2 breakout new ideas, (Splatoon and Mario Maker), its DK game, etc.

The corporate charm IMO doesn’t make up for the shortcomings. I don’t miss the software droughts, the clear inability to allocate resources for development on two platforms, the sluggish UI, the 2-hour battery life of the GamePad, the backward decisions around compatibility (Wii U Pro controller wasn’t compatible with certain games at launch).

I would agree that Nintendo Directs are perhaps a little charmless in their presentation these days, and I know they're not mutually exclusive but I will take the straight and narrow delivery of actually good and plentiful, albeit safe games any day.
 
Here's a peak wiiu revisionism vs Switch reality

Many people will tell you Mario Maker was a "bigger deal" on the WiiU then it's sequel on the Switch. However MM2 has sold 2x the copies of the original, has a larger community of level creators and players, and got far more substantial updated then MM1 ever did. The difference is that MM1 came out when the WiiU audience was starved for content, so a game that provided infinite content kept the hardcore gaming community engaged longer. MM2 came out to a far more stacked console, so the hardcore community played it for a month and then moved onto the next thing because we're collectively cult of the new sheep.

This is the same mindset that lead to MVG and Nate on their podcast talking about "TotK feels like it came and went" because for the cult of the new gamers, TotK was the game for a month and then Diablo 4, SF6, and Final Fantasy 16 all came out a month later.
 
Chaos Theory said:
Yeah Nintendo were so creative during the Wii U era: hordes of 2D platformers and shite party games.

Wii and DS era was the most creative.
Click to expand...
Arguably in the beginning, when games moved from arcades, they where pretty inovative and moved the medium a lot forward.
The Switch to 3D helped them a lot, with Mario 64, Zelda and such.
And the DS/Wii era... ALMOST as if new technological possibilities spark creativity in developers.

Ozeiyo said:
But did Nintendo really have to make new and innovative things though? Nintendo's tentpole series launched with an (excellent but) extremely safe 2D Mario and a 3D Mario that was a sequel to a 3DS game, for instance. Splatoon was a huge hit and an innovative game, but Nintendo did the exact same thing with Switch launching ARMS. The difference between these 2 games is that Splatoon was a hit and ARMS wasn't.

The stylus kirby game was innovative, yes, but it is also building on a DS game. The switch has the first 3D Kirby game, for instance.

I'd wager that, comparatively, the Wii U era looks more innovative because there were less games overall and the gamepad did allow these games to shine, but I don't think it had more.
Click to expand...
And even that Kirby game was a sequel to the DS one. (and while Kirby 3D is a theoretical big jump... it also was so save and so kirby that unlike other series that made the jump, in don't feel like its a "new" or "different" experience... it kinda is schocking how close it feels to 2D kirby for me)

Mario Maker also definitely felt something they would do on the DS... just for it to get ported to the 3DS.

Im mostly kinda saddened that they only evere used their ideas with the joy cons for gimicks (all the labo games, 1-2switch)
but outside of Arms they didn't really do a deep dive into the possibilities with a more substantial game.

(by that i mean instead of doing 15 simple things nail it down to a handful of mechanics and go deep with those)

The best case is RingFit, but this also feels more like "lets package the 15 things we have in a pack where the repetition of those is the goal".
Less so the nuances and how to vary them. (ringfits still great even if i only have 15h)
 
0
bellydrum said:
And Arms, and Super Mario Odyssey, and funding three Xenoblade Chronicles projects, and letting Ubisoft run with the Mario IP, and letting Brace Yourself (Crypt of the Necrodancer) run with the Zelda IP, and Game Builder Garage, and...
Click to expand...
If you just ignore all the times Nintendo was safe during the wiiu/3ds era, and ignore all the times Nintendo was innovative/"took risk" during the Switch era, it's basically two different companies. If Switch was made by Bintendo nobody would be defending it obviously.
 
I didn’t even realize this video was claiming that the 3DS was Nintendo at its creative peak.

lol
 
BassForever said:
Here's a peak wiiu revisionism vs Switch reality

Many people will tell you Mario Maker was a "bigger deal" on the WiiU then it's sequel on the Switch. However MM2 has sold 2x the copies of the original, has a larger community of level creators and players, and got far more substantial updated then MM1 ever did. The difference is that MM1 came out when the WiiU audience was starved for content, so a game that provided infinite content kept the hardcore gaming community engaged longer. MM2 came out to a far more stacked console, so the hardcore community played it for a month and then moved onto the next thing because we're collectively cult of the new sheep.
Click to expand...
I cant fully agree here, the different if double when the install base is literary 10x is more then just "it was a drought and now we had games". And it game early enough in the Switches life to still not have to many other games overshadow it. Then again, NSMBUD was also just 3x the sales of the original,
(and that brings me again to the question, do people really expect Wonder to explode and sell 30M before years end... )
BassForever said:
This is the same mindset that lead to MVG and Nate on their podcast talking about "TotK feels like it came and went" because for the cult of the new gamers, TotK was the game for a month and then Diablo 4, SF6, and Final Fantasy 16 all came out a month later.
Click to expand...
For sure. Just now a person around me bought a lite and TotK, and was schocked that im "done" with it, after only 2 months, who has so much gaming time.

Then again, there are games that do leave more impact, and BotW was definitely bigger with that. Theres probably also the problem that while the game has a ton of content, the same visual identity and reused characters means, there isnot that much new in regards to fanart and exploration with those aspects.

At least to me, link breaking the game and wonky physics and exploring the world was way more prevalent in the first one,
with this most focuses on the opening, ganondorf, and rauru, and somewhat ultrahand. So the question is more:
do you mean the "game is finished and old news" by "came and went" or "the cultural impact it had is way smaller".
For the first one, nope, thats a bubble, the second one...im confident that its true.
 
Forkball said:
Anytime people claim Nintendo at their lowest points is “true Nintendo” it’s always:
A) Purposefully being a contrarian
B) Nostalgia with zero memory of the content droughts
C) Bad taste

Nintendo has always made great games every generation, but I can’t take these “they lost their soul” opinions seriously.
Click to expand...
There's also an element of "I was into thing before it was cool!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom